Paul Krugman says that the Progressive Caucus’ People’s Budget is the only Real Viable Budget in the USA today


Paul Krugman says that the People’s (Progressive) Budget is the only game in town, i.e. Washington D.C.

This quote below is from the PROGRESS REPORT. The short statement concerning what Paul Krugman has made should be listened to by any thinking American as of now. But, please see Krugman’s actual statement at the NY Times–KAS

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman says the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) budget proposal is the ” only major budget proposal out there offering a plausible path to balancing the budget.” Krugman writes that serious deficit reduction must include raising revenues and that the CPC budget does exactly that.
A new International Monetary Fund (IMF) analysis concludes that “China’s economy will surpass that of America in real terms in 2016 — just five years from now.” The IMF estimates that under purchasing power parity, the Chinese economy will expand to $19 trillion in 2016 while the U.S. economy will expand to $18.8 trillion.
The Senate is moving a bill to cut the number of administration posts that are subject to Senate approval , a “rare voluntary surrender of Congressional clout” that is backed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). “We are losing very good people because the process has become so onerous, so lengthy and so duplicative,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME).

Note: Go to this link for the people’s budget.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70&sectiontree=5,70

Advertisements

About eslkevin

I am a peace educator who has taken time to teach and work in countries such as the USA, Germany, Japan, Nicaragua, Mexico, the UAE, Kuwait, Oman over the past 4 decades.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Paul Krugman says that the Progressive Caucus’ People’s Budget is the only Real Viable Budget in the USA today

  1. eslkevin says:

    You have to wonder: If things are that serious, shouldn’t we be raising taxes, not cutting them?

    OP-ED COLUMNIST
    Let’s Take a Hike
    By PAUL KRUGMAN
    Published: April 24, 2011

    When I listen to current discussions of the federal budget, the message I hear sounds like this: We’re in crisis! We must take drastic action immediately! And we must keep taxes low, if not actually cut them further!

    My description of the budget debate is in no way an exaggeration. Consider the Ryan budget proposal, which all the Very Serious People assured us was courageous and important. That proposal begins by warning that “a major debt crisis is inevitable” unless we confront the deficit. It then calls, not for tax increases, but for tax cuts, with taxes on the wealthy falling to their lowest level since 1931.

    And because of those large tax cuts, the only way the Ryan proposal can even claim to reduce the deficit is through savage cuts in spending, mainly falling on the poor and vulnerable. (A realistic assessment suggests that the proposal would actually increase the deficit.)

    President Obama’s proposal is a lot better. At least it calls for raising taxes on high incomes back to Clinton-era levels. But it preserves the rest of the Bush tax cuts — cuts that were originally sold as a way to dispose of a large budget surplus. And, as a result, it still relies heavily on spending cuts, even as it falls short of actually balancing the budget.

    So why isn’t someone offering a proposal reflecting the reality that the Bush tax cuts were a huge mistake, and suggesting that increased revenue play a major role in deficit reduction? Actually, someone is — and I’ll get to that in a moment. First, though, let’s talk about the current state of American taxes.

    From the tone of much budget discussion, you might think that we were groaning under crushing, unprecedented levels of taxation. The reality is that effective federal tax rates at every level of income have fallen significantly over the past 30 years, especially at the top. And, over all, U.S. taxes are much lower as a percentage of national income than taxes in most other wealthy nations.

    The point is that we aren’t that heavily taxed, either by historical standards or in comparison with other nations. So if you’re truly horrified by the budget deficit, why not propose tax increases as part of the solution?

    Wait, there’s more. The core of the Ryan proposal is a plan to privatize and defund Medicare. Yet this would do nothing to reduce the deficit over the next 10 years, which is why all the near-term deficit reduction comes from brutal reductions in aid to the needy and unspecified cuts in discretionary spending. Tax increases, by contrast, can be fast-acting remedies for red ink.

    And that’s why the only major budget proposal out there offering a plausible path to balancing the budget is the one that includes significant tax increases: the “People’s Budget” from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which — unlike the Ryan plan, which was just right-wing orthodoxy with an added dose of magical thinking — is genuinely courageous because it calls for shared sacrifice.

    True, it increases revenue partly by imposing substantially higher taxes on the wealthy, which is popular everywhere except inside the Beltway. But it also calls for a rise in the Social Security cap, significantly raising taxes on around 6 percent of workers. And, by rescinding many of the Bush tax cuts, not just those affecting top incomes, it would modestly raise taxes even on middle-income families.

    All of this, combined with spending cuts mostly focused on defense, is projected to yield a balanced budget by 2021. And the proposal achieves this without dismantling the legacy of the New Deal, which gave us Social Security, and the Great Society, which gave us Medicare and Medicaid.

    But if the progressive proposal has all these virtues, why isn’t it getting anywhere near as much attention as the much less serious Ryan proposal? It’s true that it has no chance of becoming law anytime soon. But that’s equally true of the Ryan proposal.

    The answer, I’m sorry to say, is the insincerity of many if not most self-proclaimed deficit hawks. To the extent that they care about the deficit at all, it takes second place to their desire to do precisely what the People’s Budget avoids doing, namely, tear up our current social contract, turning the clock back 80 years under the guise of necessity. They don’t want to be told that such a radical turn to the right is not, in fact, necessary.

    But, it isn’t, as the progressive budget proposal shows. We do need to bring the deficit down, although we aren’t facing an immediate crisis. How we go about stemming the tide of red ink is, however, a choice — and by making tax increases part of the solution, we can avoid savaging the poor and undermining the security of the middle class.

  2. eslkevin says:

    ENERGY
    The High Costs Of Oil
    Although Wall Street traders and oil company executives are enjoying record returns, most Americans aren’t seeing the benefit of that economic success. Working families are still struggling to find steady employment while Tea Party officials cut taxes for corporations and services for everyone else. As the Progress Report warned a month ago, gas and food prices, inflated by international speculators, hammer the middle class. Rising gas prices are expected to inflate ExxonMobil’s profits by more than fifty percent. Meanwhile, catastrophic weather fueled by decades of oil pollution is uprooting lives and adding to the uncertainty of the much-needed economic recovery. Rep. Paul Ryan’ s (R-WI) 2012 budget passed by the House Republicans compounds the threats by keeping billions of dollars in subsidies for oil companies while slashing investment in clean energy by 70 percent. While the GOP maintains a single-minded focus on subsidizing new oil drilling, even Goldman Sachs has admitted that “the price of oil has grown out of control due to excessive speculation.” President Obama has taken notice, laying out his “plans to address rising gas prices over the short and the long term” in his weekly Saturday address. “Instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy sources, we need to invest in tomorrow’s,” Obama said. “We need to invest in clean, renewable energy. In the long term, that’s the answer.”

    http://pr.thinkprogress.org/2011/04/pr20110425/

  3. eslkevin says:

    ENDING DIRTY SUBSIDIES: In his weekly address, Obama reiterated his call to “end the $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies we give to the oil and gas companies each year.” Americans of all stripes recognize that tax breaks and giveaways to oil companies need to be eliminated, despite the industry propaganda that these subsidies are needed to prevent high energy prices. When asked about massive subsidies given to the oil industry, even Tea Party activists have agreed with progressives that there is a structural imbalance in the political system towards corporate power. Many of the oil-industry subsidies come in the form of passing corporate risks onto American families: there have been no laws passed to protect our nation from oil disasters like BP’s, and companies like Koch Industries enjoy the multi-billion dollar subsidy of being able to emit millions of tons of carbon pollution for free — while communities foot the bill for our increasingly dangerous climate. Far from raising prices at the pump, eliminating these subsidies would instead reduce oil companies’ outsized profits and corporate paydays. If this Congress wants to take on the pain at the pump, it will support legislation to build a national infrastructure of electric charging stations for electric vehicles, deploy 21st-century high-speed rail, and curb oil profiteering by Wall Street.

    GOP CARRIES WATER FOR BIG OIL: The GOP answer to Wall Street and Big Oil taking over our economic future is to give them even more power. The Ryan budget slashes the CFTC budget by nearly two-thirds, and would “slash investments in the research, development, and deployment of the clean energy technologies of the future.” As they work to lose the future, they also plan to roll out a new iteration of the “drill baby drill” marketing campaign in May. “House Republicans are planning bill introductions, hearings, markups and floor votes on legislation aimed at expanding domestic oil production in response to high gasoline prices.” “Now, the GOP controls the floor agenda and plans to use it when they get back from the two-week spring recess.” According to House Speaker John Boehner’s spokesman, “The White House and the rest of the Democrats who run Washington are terrified about the political impact of gas prices, because many of their policies — like the national energy tax — are explicitly designed to raise energy prices.” In reality, big oil profits go up with higher gas prices, and the only “national energy tax” is the cost of our national oil dependence. Speaker Boehner’s office has the “concern” that Democrats are calling for investigations of market fraud “to distract from the real issue” of the “need to increase the supply of American energy.” In other words, they’re worried that the American public agree that oil companies and Wall Street need to be reined in, not left in charge of our energy policy. Even members of Boehner’s own caucus — like Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA) and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) — admit the time has come to cut oil subsidies.

  4. eslkevin says:

    The GOP budget is a dagger in the heart of American families.

    Under it, everyone would sacrifice – except billionaires and corporations. The social safety net working families rely upon would disappear. People remember life before Medicare. Many seniors’ lives ended in abject, heartbreaking poverty.

    This is the GOP plan for America’s future. This time, we Senate Democrats can stop them. But this is just the beginning of their assault on our ideals, and our firewall – and ability to stop them – is in jeopardy. That’s why we’re launching the DSCC Rapid Response Project to expose their radical agenda. I’ve set a goal to raise $169,394 by April 30, and I need everyone in the fight.

    If Republicans gain four Senate seats, their vision will become reality. We can’t let that happen.

    Click here to give $5 or more, and help us raise $169,394 before April 30. Our Rapid Response Project is key to keeping our Democratic Senate firewall.

    We’re not just defending Senate seats – we’re going on the offense, too. In states like Massachusetts, Nevada and Indiana, changing demographics and bloody Republican primaries offer opportunities to turn red Senate seats blue.

    Our Rapid Response Project will help. By countering every GOP attack and letting voters know what Republicans are really after, we can go on offense in 2012. And going on offense gives us a better chance to keep our Senate majority – and stop the Republicans’ radical agenda.

    We need your help! Click here to give $5 or more toward our April 30 $169,394 goal. Every dollar you give helps fight the Republicans – and save our Democratic Senate firewall.

    The Republican budget shows what kind of America Republicans want. The Democratic Senate is determined to stop them. Give today, and help make sure we can.

    Sincerely,

    Sen. Patty Murray

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s